Previously, at 3:28 pm -0400 6/16/09, Peter wrote:
>You shouldn't suckup to anybody.
Perhaps not the best choice of words, but the meaning was clear to me!
p.
--
All power corrupts, but we need the electricity.
-- Unknown
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Previously, at 3:14 pm -0400 6/16/09, Len Gerstel wrote:
>Now as Len, a regular member of the G3-5 List:
>
>If you noticed, some of the most vocal supporters of bottom posting
>and trimming camp are the most prolific and helpful posters on the list.
>
>Wouldn't you want to suck up to them to ge
At 2:21 AM -0500 6/17/2009, Ralph Green wrote:
>
>HTML is rejected by most lists I am on. How well does this demime
>work? It might be friendlier than rejecting.
Not very well. The problem is that html mails tend to use indent
tags, instead of the normal "> ", to denote quoting,. So when you
Howdy,
HTML is rejected by most lists I am on. How well does this demime
work? It might be friendlier than rejecting.
I think a better approach to 2 is to limit the quoted text to a
percentage. In a very long response, it might be reasonable to have
more than 20 quoted lines.
I had never h
Howdy,
My favorite way to do this is to setup a filter. I look for the from
address and send it to a special folder I call Garbage. I check that
folder infrequently and after I do that for a while, I have changed the
filter to actually delete the email. I have just one person in my kill
filte
At 4:08 PM -0700 6/16/2009, Fabian Fang wrote:
>
>As quoted above, once again, the List Owner declared sixteen months
>ago that "top post vs bottom post" was no longer an issue for any LEM
>List, and Nannies were not to hassle members any more. So why are we
>posting about one hundred messages
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Fabian Fang wrote:
>
> All of us have always been free to respond or not to others' messages,
> free to archive or delete others' messages, free to like or dislike
> other members, free to suck up or not to the few "hotshots," and free
> to hate or love list nanni
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Esther Blodgett wrote:
> Please take me off this list. you are filling up my email.
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Dan Knight wrote:
>
> As I posted to every list on Feb. 15, 2008:
>
> After discussion with the other list managers, we've decided to end
> our polic
lite netiquette back and forth
On Jun 16, 2:59 pm, John Musbach wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Al Poulin wrote:
> > I did, and he answered me.
>
> ... What'd he say?
Below is what Dan said. And his Rules of List Management page
carries
On Jun 16, 4:39 pm, "Wallace Adrian D'Alessio"
wrote:
> Or , is it possible that in seeking help you might want your case
> presented in a sequential, easy to follow format that bring little
> impairment to communication? The less time it takes to parse a plea
> or even a help response the soone
On Jun 16, 2:59 pm, John Musbach wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Al Poulin wrote:
> > I did, and he answered me.
>
> ... What'd he say?
Below is what Dan said. And his Rules of List Management page
carries today's date.
Al Poulin
***
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Peter wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Len Gerstel wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:59 PM, John Musbach wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ... What'd he say?
>>
>> The official word from Dan Knight, the list owner is:
>>
>>> We've decided to end our policy of askin
On Jun 16, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Len Gerstel wrote:
snip
>
> Now as Len, a regular member of the G3-5 List:
>
> If you noticed, some of the most vocal supporters of bottom posting
> and trimming camp are the most prolific and helpful posters on the
> list.
>
> Wouldn't you want to suck up to them
On Jun 16, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Peter wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Len Gerstel wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't you want to suck up to them to get their help?
> You shouldn't suckup to anybody.
Sorry, probably a bad choice of words.
Used as a short hand for:
If someone is willing to give
On Jun 16, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Len Gerstel wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:59 PM, John Musbach wrote:
>
>>
>> ... What'd he say?
>
> The official word from Dan Knight, the list owner is:
>
>> We've decided to end our policy of asking that list members not
>> "top post" their replies. That's th
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:59 PM, John Musbach wrote:
>
> ... What'd he say?
The official word from Dan Knight, the list owner is:
> We've decided to end our policy of asking that list members not
> "top post" their replies. That's the default behavior of most email
> clients, and just remindin
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Al Poulin wrote:
> I did, and he answered me.
... What'd he say?
--
Best Regards,
John Musbach
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a
group for those using G3, G4
On Jun 16, 2:41 am, "Wallace Adrian D'Alessio"
wrote:
>
> Anyone has the opportunity to write to him directly to find out. You
> needn't ask permission.
I did, and he answered me.
Al Poulin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscr
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:31 AM, John Musbach wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Wallace Adrian
> D'Alessio wrote:
>> Whatever the agenda is we all agreed to the terms of use when we joined.
>>
>> They are Dan's lists to run run as he pleases.
>>
>> There are other options on the web.
>
>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Wallace Adrian
D'Alessio wrote:
> Whatever the agenda is we all agreed to the terms of use when we joined.
>
> They are Dan's lists to run run as he pleases.
>
> There are other options on the web.
Is he running it? I haven't heard a peep from him throughout the
d
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:24 AM, John Musbach wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Wallace Adrian
> D'Alessio wrote:
>> Talking about list rules and policies is not off topic.
>
> Except that it is, it belongs on the lemlists list but since that's
> simply a blackhole where all complaints f
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Wallace Adrian
D'Alessio wrote:
> Talking about list rules and policies is not off topic.
Except that it is, it belongs on the lemlists list but since that's
simply a blackhole where all complaints fall to deaf ears no one posts
there... Even the nannies would rat
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Jim Scott wrote:
> The "moderator" is a LEM list nanny and should know better than to
> start an off-topic discussion on this list instead of the LEM List,
> except that his desire to have things his way apparently is more
> important than list rules, or protocol,
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Charles Lenington wrote:
> What I don't understand, is why this thread is being discussed on this
> list? There is a proper list for list issues.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/lemlists?hl=en
Oh please, that list is just where banned members go to cry into a
b
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Kyle Hansen wrote:
>
> On 6/15/09 3:32 PM, "Wallace Adrian D'Alessio"
> Broadcast into the ether:
>
>> Perhaps you would like to spend the time Kyle and other Nannies have
>> to keep the lists civilized.
>> It is a rather thankless job.
>
> OMG. Did I really see
On 6/15/09 4:45 PM, "Amanda Ward" Broadcast into
the ether:
> ... armed with torches and pitchforks. ;-)
They always are. I try to be the nicest I can be but sometimes I come off
wrong. It will all be answered by Dan Knight.
But suffice it to say there is one very important advantage to bott
>
> In private communications where two or no more than a few parties are
> sharing ideas or discussing a subject, such as buying/selling an item
> or agreeing to meet at a certain place/time, etc., untrimmed top
> posting works very well because it is easier and quicker and acts much
>
On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Kyle Hansen wrote:
>
> On 6/15/09 2:52 PM, "Jim Scott" Broadcast into
> the
> ether:
>
>> The "moderator" is a LEM list nanny and should know better than to
>> start an off-topic discussion on this list instead of the LEM List,
>> except that his desire to have th
On 6/15/09 3:32 PM, "Wallace Adrian D'Alessio"
Broadcast into the ether:
> Perhaps you would like to spend the time Kyle and other Nannies have
> to keep the lists civilized.
> It is a rather thankless job.
OMG. Did I really see that?
Thank you Wallace. We delete trolls and spamers and spend
On 6/15/09 2:52 PM, "Jim Scott" Broadcast into the
ether:
> The "moderator" is a LEM list nanny and should know better than to
> start an off-topic discussion on this list instead of the LEM List,
> except that his desire to have things his way apparently is more
> important than list rules, or
On 6/15/09 12:32 PM, "Dan" Broadcast into the ether:
> Sometimes it's not location location location so much as audience
> audience audience.
>
> The lem list lem list is all but dead...
>
> - Dan.
Beat me to it again...I just got home...dangit. There are more active
members here...that's
On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Jim Scott wrote:
snip
>
>
> The "moderator" is a LEM list nanny and should know better than to
> start an off-topic discussion on this list instead of the LEM List,
> except that his desire to have things his way apparently is more
> important than list rules, or prot
On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Jim Scott wrote:
>>
>> The "moderator" is a LEM list nanny and should know better than to
>> start an off-topic discussion on this list instead of the LEM List,
>> except that his desire to have things
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Jim Scott wrote:
>
>
> The "moderator" is a LEM list nanny and should know better than to
> start an off-topic discussion on this list instead of the LEM List,
> except that his desire to have things his way apparently is more
> important than list rules, or prot
On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:47 PM, James E. Therrault wrote:
>
> No, the *original* thread was closed by the "moderator" who promptly
> started this thread...
>
> JT
>
>
>
>
> Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote:
>> I thought that this thread was closed by the moderator?
>>
The "moderator" is a LEM list nanny
No, the *original* thread was closed by the "moderator" who promptly
started this thread...
JT
Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote:
> I thought that this thread was closed by the moderator?
>
> Also, GMail's reply function makes top posting, however annoying it
> may be to some people, but it is the d
On Jun 15, 10:33 am, "Alex Smith (K4RNT)"
wrote:
> I thought that this thread was closed by the moderator?
>
> Also, GMail's reply function makes top posting, however annoying it
> may be to some people, but it is the default action, and I have not
> been able to figure out how to make it run o
At 2:13 PM -0500 6/15/2009, Charles Lenington wrote:
>Dante Armok wrote:
> > No, the other thread was closed. This is supposed to be the
>> constructive discussion.
>>
>What I don't understand, is why this thread is being discussed on this
>list? There is a proper list for list issues.
>
>http
On Jun 15, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Charles Lenington wrote:
>
> Dante Armok wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Alex Smith (K4RNT)
>> mailto:shadowhun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I thought that this thread was closed by the moderator?
>>
>>
>> No, the other thread was closed. This is s
Dante Armok wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Alex Smith (K4RNT)
> mailto:shadowhun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I thought that this thread was closed by the moderator?
>
>
> No, the other thread was closed. This is supposed to be the
> constructive discussion.
>
What I don't und
On Jun 15, 12:35 pm, Dan wrote:
> Normal text editing shortcuts work, eg: cmd-downarrow.
>
> I strongly recommend leaving the mail client set to put you at the
> top tho. That way you can easily TRIM as you move down thru the
> message. If the client starts you at the bottom, then you probably
At 12:23 PM -0400 6/15/2009, John Martz wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Dan wrote:
>>>Also, GMail's reply function makes top posting, however annoying it
>>>may be to some people, but it is the default action, and I have not
>>>been able to figure out how to make it run otherwise.
>
>>I'
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Dante Armok wrote:
> Also, GMail's reply function makes top posting, however annoying it
>> may be to some people, but it is the default action, and I have not
>> been able to figure out how to make it run otherwise.
>
>
> I'm in GMail's web interface right now.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote:
>
> I thought that this thread was closed by the moderator?
No, the other thread was closed. This is supposed to be the constructive
discussion.
> Also, GMail's reply function makes top posting, however annoying it
> may be to some
I thought that this thread was closed by the moderator?
Also, GMail's reply function makes top posting, however annoying it
may be to some people, but it is the default action, and I have not
been able to figure out how to make it run otherwise.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009
On Jun 14, 4:48 am, "Gary D." wrote:
> Why don't we just break up the group into two groups, one for top
> posters and one for bottom posters and than everybody will be happy.
> Or maybe not. (sorry)
I would be happy because I neither read nor respond to top posters
anyway. The exception to
On 6/14/09 5:23 PM, "Al Poulin" Broadcast into the
ether:
> Hmmm, I wonder if Dan Knight will adjust or clarify the rules for all
> of lowendmac? Somewhere, I read that there was a "roundtable" about
> this yesterday.
>
> Al Poulin
It's his call. But as I said. A lot most of us consider top
Hmmm, I wonder if Dan Knight will adjust or clarify the rules for all
of lowendmac? Somewhere, I read that there was a "roundtable" about
this yesterday.
Al Poulin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List,
On Jun 13, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Hansen wrote:
> Partially because of Microsoft's influence, top-posting is very
> common on mailing lists and in personal e-mail
I never used top posting till I was forced to go to Outlook at work.
Although I find it annoying I don't mind it so much at work s
On 6/14/09 2:07 PM, "Dan" Broadcast into the ether:
> God bless AOL and the heck it hath wrought, that lingers today.
>
> - Dan.
> --
> - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth
Not to mention that 97% of online crime against children is through AOL.
That is why I will never use any
At 2:06 PM -0600 6/14/2009, Doug McNutt wrote:
> >> No, not the rest of the world. Top posting is fine for light
>>> conversational chatting, where context is relatively unimportant.
>>> All other threads should be bottom posted and trimmed.
>>
>>True even in my workplaces. Only an emergency
On 6/14/09 1:06 PM, "Doug McNutt" Broadcast into
the ether:
> In short - muck with the list software to get what you want without
> repetitive requests to "please stop top posting".
Google won't let us. They have no settings for those features.
Kyle Hansen
--
This is the way the world ends.
At 12:03 -0700 6/14/09, Kyle Hansen wrote:
>On 6/14/09 6:54 AM, "Dan" Broadcast into the ether:
>
>> No, not the rest of the world. Top posting is fine for light
>> conversational chatting, where context is relatively unimportant.
>> All other threads should be bottom posted and trimmed.
>
>True
On 6/14/09 10:40 AM, "Brian" Broadcast into the
ether:
>
> You know what? If it's such a huge deal, why don't you just write your
> friggin senator and have them write a law to strike down this egregious and
> abhorrent behavior? That anyone would have so much time to to spend on such a
> non-
On 6/14/09 6:54 AM, "Dan" Broadcast into the ether:
> No, not the rest of the world. Top posting is fine for light
> conversational chatting, where context is relatively unimportant.
> All other threads should be bottom posted and trimmed.
True even in my workplaces. Only an emergency would b
On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Bill Connelly wrote:
>
> RE: Netiquette
>
> I've decided out of respect for the Gurus of this site,
> Much.
> I will bottom post after trimming what I'm not responding to ...
> Will do.
> To the best of my abilities and, sometimes, in opposition to, my
> current
RE: Netiquette
I've decided out of respect for the Gurus of this site,
I will bottom post after trimming what I'm not responding to ...
To the best of my abilities and, sometimes, in opposition to, my
current mood ...
Bill Connelly
artsite: http://mysite.verizon.net/moonstoneartstudio/
myspa
Seriously, different people communicate differently. I don't whine
and complain when having a verbal conversation and someone speaks to
me from my left side as opposed to 20 degrees to the right facing
forward from me. The intolerance here is not surprising, but never
fails to disappoint,
I'll follow whatever type of posting the message seems to generate...
top, bottom, interspersed... fine with me. Just, please folks, trim
some of the older stuff out of the message when the thread goes on for
days.
Just my $.02... California sales tax not included!
Amanda
The light at the
On Jun 14, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Ernest L. Gunerius wrote:
>
>> everybody is never going to be happy. :-)
>> Tech people like bottom posting, the rest of the world top posts. I
>> get
>> it, I don't mind switching back & forth but in Thunderbird it is a 4
>> click process to switch.
>> Is there a
>everybody is never going to be happy. :-)
>Tech people like bottom posting, the rest of the world top posts. I get
>it, I don't mind switching back & forth but in Thunderbird it is a 4
>click process to switch.
>Is there a mail client that lets you choose when, say, right clicking
>the reply butt
Ralph,
I think that you hit the nail squarely on the head.
This thread is the result of the single action of the one that started
it that succeeded irrelevant comments he made in a previous thread.
Regarding my experience, top posting was the practice in every
commercial/industrial enviroment
On Jun 14, 2009, at 12:07 AM, Stanton Mitrany wrote:
>
> Top-posting forces your reader to work . . .
> __
>
> It's been my impression that those who participate in the posts on
> these lists:
>
> - Usually compose Subject: lines which are a reasonably informative
> description of the is
On Jun 14, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Mark wrote:
>
> Gary D. wrote:
>> Why don't we just break up the group into two groups, one for top
>> posters and one for bottom posters and than everybody will be happy.
>> Or maybe not. (sorry)
>>
>> G.
>>
> everybody is never going to be happy. :-)
> Tech people
At 10:16 AM -0400 6/14/2009, Mark wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>>> I don't mind switching back & forth but in Thunderbird it is a 4
>>> click process to switch.
> >
> > Why switch back and forth at all?
>
>It confuses people.
I meant why switch the settings in your email client at all? Just
keep the
Dan wrote:
>> I don't mind switching back & forth but in Thunderbird it is a 4
>> click process to switch.
>>
>
> Why switch back and forth at all?
>
> - Dan.
>
It confuses people.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
At 9:04 AM -0400 6/14/2009, Mark wrote:
>
>Tech people like bottom posting, the rest of the world top posts.
No, not the rest of the world. Top posting is fine for light
conversational chatting, where context is relatively unimportant.
All other threads should be bottom posted and trimmed.
An
At 12:07 AM -0400 6/14/2009, Stanton Mitrany wrote:
>Top-posting forces your reader to work . . .
>__
>
>It's been my impression that those who participate in the posts on
>these lists:
>
>- Usually compose Subject: lines which are a reasonably informative
>description of the issue withi
Gary D. wrote:
> Why don't we just break up the group into two groups, one for top
> posters and one for bottom posters and than everybody will be happy.
> Or maybe not. (sorry)
>
> G.
>
everybody is never going to be happy. :-)
Tech people like bottom posting, the rest of the world top posts.
On Jun 14, 2009, at 6:09 AM, Kyle Hansen wrote:
>
> On 6/14/09 3:02 AM, "Peter" Broadcast into
> the ether:
>
>> Ok, got that trimming part. Anything else?
>> Peter M.
>
> Not really.
> --
Are we through with this topic today?
Its also 8:30am and I'm testing to see if my g3-g5 contributio
On 6/14/09 3:02 AM, "Peter" Broadcast into the ether:
> Ok, got that trimming part. Anything else?
> Peter M.
Not really.
--
Kyle H. Hansen
"It's Always darkest... right before it gets totally black."
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
On Jun 13, 2009, at 11:19 PM, MaGioZal wrote:
>
> On 6/13/09 8:21 PM, Kyle Hansen at wrote:
>
>> Even more
> I feel like in hell...
Ok, got that trimming part. Anything else?
Peter M.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscri
On 6/14/09 2:48 AM, "Gary D." Broadcast into the ether:
>
> Why don't we just break up the group into two groups, one for top
> posters and one for bottom posters and than everybody will be happy.
> Or maybe not. (sorry)
Most of us who have been here for the last twelve+ years years and those
Why don't we just break up the group into two groups, one for top
posters and one for bottom posters and than everybody will be happy.
Or maybe not. (sorry)
G.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a
gr
On 6/13/09 11:30 PM, "Ralph Green" Broadcast into
the ether:
So this is easier for you to read...who was I responding to?
>
> Howdy,
> I am pretty sure Stanton does get it, and you mis-read him Kyle. It
> was probably an accident, but Stanton was commenting on the notion that
> top-posting
Howdy,
I am pretty sure Stanton does get it, and you mis-read him Kyle. It
was probably an accident, but Stanton was commenting on the notion that
top-posting forces your reader to work. Top posting for short messages
is easier to read and that is the big advantage. Most people could
configur
On 6/13/09 9:07 PM, "Stanton Mitrany" Broadcast
into the ether:
> Top-posting forces your reader to work . . .
> Sorry if this comment was hard to decipher.
> stanton
You sir, obviously "get it."
--
The authorities require that a person must be missing for more than 48 hours
before filing a r
Top-posting forces your reader to work . . .
__
It's been my impression that those who participate in the posts on
these lists:
- Usually compose Subject: lines which are a reasonably informative
description of the issue within the message.
- If reading any particular post in a thre
On 6/13/09 8:18 PM, "MacGuy" Broadcast into the ether:
>
>
> On Jun 13, 2009, at 8:13 PM, Kris Tilford wrote:
>
>> Dingbat!! Plain text, plain text, plain text, plain text.
>
> Oh, that was delicious! :-) Jeff
LMFAO. I was not going to say it.
Kyle Hansen
--
This is the way the world
On 6/13/09 8:21 PM, Kyle Hansen at wrote:
> Even more trimming the text to just the
> relevant information is of great benefit.
I think trimming before replying any e-mail is a fundamental lesson.
Non-trimming should be used only in special cases.
I subscribe two another high-traffic mailing
On Jun 13, 2009, at 8:13 PM, Kris Tilford wrote:
> Dingbat!! Plain text, plain text, plain text, plain text.
Oh, that was delicious! :-) Jeff
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a
group for those u
On Jun 13, 2009, at 8:40 PM, John Callahan wrote:
> BINGO!! Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter.
Dingbat!! Plain text, plain text, plain text, plain text.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List,
On 6/13/09 6:40 PM, "John Callahan" Broadcast into
the ether:
> BINGO!! Twitter, Twitter,Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter.
He he. At WWDC they say Twitter will be gone in less than a year.
And the reason was that as a nanny I get blasted over and over again weekly
about why
BINGO!! Twitter, Twitter,Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter,
Twitter.
On Jun 13, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> OH MY GOD. WHAT THE CRAP?? Why the hell is this asinine issue being
> debated AGAIN?
>
> On Jun 13, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Kyle Hansen wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6/13/09 4:21 PM, "K
Not a mistake
On Jun 13, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Paul Stamsen wrote:
>
> Previously, at 8:28 pm -0500 6/13/09, Brian wrote:
>> OH MY GOD. WHAT THE CRAP?? Why the hell is this asinine issue being
>> debated AGAIN?
>
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> V
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Because so
Previously, at 8:28 pm -0500 6/13/09, Brian wrote:
>OH MY GOD. WHAT THE CRAP?? Why the hell is this asinine issue being
>debated AGAIN?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Because some PEOPLE insist on making the same mistake over and over?
--
Reaganomics proved what every farmer k
OH MY GOD. WHAT THE CRAP?? Why the hell is this asinine issue being
debated AGAIN?
On Jun 13, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Kyle Hansen wrote:
>
> On 6/13/09 4:21 PM, "Kyle Hansen" Broadcast
> into the
> ether:
>
> And page 2 of why bottom posting is considered the polite way to
> handle
> things,
On 6/13/09 4:21 PM, "Kyle Hansen" Broadcast into the
ether:
And page 2 of why bottom posting is considered the polite way to handle
things, especially in a back and forth forum:
Top-posting forces your reader to work
A top-posted message is easy to write; since, it doesn't require the writer
t
I will even start the new thread so that we can calmly discuss the issue. I
am of the opinion that I don't need to respond to a mailing list (like this
one) while at work or out for dinner or whatever. Nothing has to be
answered instantly on a list like this. In fact a lot of people subscribe
t
89 matches
Mail list logo
